Venkatram Erasani , Warangal V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Warangal

ITA 1345/Hyd/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0075 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-05-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH PARUCHURI
• Assessee Lawyers: K V CHALAMAIAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES SMC BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. NO.1345/HYD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014 - 15 SRI VENKATRAM ERASANI, 14 - 1 - 143, 1 ST FLOOR, MG ROAD, WARANGAL 506 002. PAN: AAAPE 8902 F VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, WARANGAL. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: SRI K.V. CHALAMAIAH FOR REVENUE : SRI DINESH PARUCHURI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13/05/2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 /05/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JM . THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 3, HYDERABAD ON 19/04/2018. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,27 ,890/ - . ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 24,73,600/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O. NOTICED HUGE TRANSACTIONS I.E, WITHDRAWALS AND DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HDF C BANK, ICICI BANK AND THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE QUANTUM OF TOTAL INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. ASSESSEE 2 WAS SHOW - CAUSED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IN REPLY, ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS AND CONSIDERING THE SAME, A.O. TREATED THE CASH CREDITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNTS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL MANUALLY IN PAPER FORMAT ON 2 9/04/2016 , BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A), OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY WHICH IS MANDATORY AS PER THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.20/2016 AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MADDI NARSAIAH VS. DCIT, DISM ISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN LIMINE. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE TREATING THE APPEAL AS DISMISSED IN LIMINE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO E - FILED APPEAL AS WAS MANDATORILY REQUIRED. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS STATUTORILY UND ER OBLIGATION TO FILE THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY WITHIN THE EXTENDED TIME ALLOWED BY THE BOARDS CIRCULAR NO.20/2016 DATED 26/05/2016 WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE PARTICULAR INCOME TAX RULE UNDER WHICH SUCH OBLIGATION WAS CAST ON THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRONEOUSLY MADE ELABORATE DISCUSSION ABOUT CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IN FORM NO.35, IN PAPER FORMAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS UNDER WHICH SUCH DELAY OCCURRED BY MAKING SUCH APPEAL NON - EST IN LAW. 4. HAVING ISSUED REGULAR NOTICES OF HEARING WITHOUT SPECIFYING ANY INFIRMITY IN THE APPEAL FILED IN PAPER FORMAT, THE CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE SAME IN LIMINE WITHOUT AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BY IGNORING THE LETTERS OF ADJOURNMENT FILED BEFORE HIM. 3 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES, LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS AS THE OCCASION MAY WARRANT. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE AP PEAL ELECTRONICALLY . HE PRAYED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR FILING THE APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY AND THE APPEAL BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. HAVING REGARD TO THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR WHERE THE ASSESSEES WERE REQUIRED TO FILE THE APPEALS ELECTRONICALLY, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE APPEAL WITHIN THE TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A) MANUALLY PAPER FORMAT . THEREFORE , WE ARE INCLINED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ITS APPEAL ELECTRONICALLY AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF SUC H APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH MAY, 2019. SD/ - (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 24 TH MAY, 2019. 4 OKK, SR.PS COPY TO 1. SRI VENKATARAM ERASANI, 14 - 1 - 143, 1 ST FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, WARANGAL - 506 002. 2. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 4, WARANGAL. 3. CIT (A) - 3 , HYDERABAD. 4. PR. CIT - 3 , HYDERABAD. 5. DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE